Looking for opinions - what models are trouble?

Discussion in 'General Motoring' started by (Just) Allan, Feb 8, 2006.

  1. (Just) Allan

    (Just) Allan Guest

    We've only owned two 1970s 240s for years now. I love our 1978, but
    I am getting a bit worn out having no air conditioning, heavy steering
    that no-one can make lighter, 9km per litre of petrol...

    But I don't want to buy something that I'm fixing and throwing money
    at all the time either. The 240 has been excellent in this respect.
    So I'm Looking for opinions on what models are the most trouble free -
    or what models to avoid.

    For instance, I've heard the early 240 6 cylinder engines were largely
    duds and the blocks became porous. That the 164 had terrible fuel
    economy. The 240s have poor air conditioning. The 740s had two
    automatic gearboxes and one should be avoided as it would commit
    suicide over a ten-second high engine idle. The 300 series had an
    engine (Renault was it?) to avoid. Interference engines in all models
    are to be avoided. Engines with belt driven water pumps...

    Basically, if it's possible, I want a car that is still as reliable as
    our 1978 244. Something that means my family won't die if some idiot
    hits us. Has cool air conditioning. Needs only a few oil changes a
    year, a new timing belt every couple of years, new oil seals every 5
    or 10... and isn't at the mechanic several times a year like the other
    goobers I know that own fords, Nissans, Toyotas, etc.

    So what are the economy, reliability and safety of these like (say out
    of 10)?

    440 (am particularly interested in comments on this - especially
    safety since it's so small)

    740 (similar to 240s I assume?)
    760 (engine quality? Does economy suffer due to the 6 cylinders?)
    850
    940
    960

    and all the "X" series and anything else I've left out.

    Thanks for reading...

    Allan.
     
    (Just) Allan, Feb 8, 2006
    #1
  2. (Just) Allan

    James Sweet Guest


    I'm unfamiliar with all the Europe-only models (300, 400) but the late
    240s have improved air conditioning. The 740s and 940s also have pretty
    good A/C, though you might want to get a '91(?) or later which already
    is designed for R134a refrigerant. I'd avoid the V6, but 760s with the
    turbo-4 are fine. No real experience with the 850 and 960 but they seem
    to be pretty well designed cars. Oh, I would also avoid pre-88 760s with
    the vacuum operated climate control unless you like pulling your hair
    out tracking down leaks.

    All of the above have more bells & whistles to break than your 70's 240
    but since you desire more features there's no getting around that.
     
    James Sweet, Feb 8, 2006
    #2
  3. If you want a similar car without having to do lots of little
    repairs, try a 940 with low miles and full service records. As for
    your '78, using the narrowest acceptable tires (prefereably with a
    softer rubber for decent grip) and running them about 5 psi under
    the tire manufacturer's maximum pressure, should help both the
    heavy steering and lousy fuel economy - at least a bit. And you can
    get aftermarket A/C installed for about $800.

    --







    http://freevision.org/michael/index.html
     
    Michael Cerkowski, Feb 8, 2006
    #3
  4. (Just) Allan

    John Horner Guest

    The closest thing would be a 90s 940. They were still engineered and
    built in the fashion of the 240. The 850 and later vehicles are in my
    experience much more costly to keep going in the over 100,000 mile range.

    John
     
    John Horner, Feb 8, 2006
    #4
  5. (Just) Allan

    AND Books Guest

    i've driven volvos since 1963, p540, 122s, 240s... my latest was a 1986
    245 and i got 460K smiles from it and look to give it away to anyone
    willing to put up with the rust. my 1981 245 is still resting in the
    driveway. the 1983 244 sedan has found a good home... i'm now in a
    great 1990 245 with 80K on it. it's great, and may be the last volvo
    i will ever own. STAY WITH THE 240 series, *nothing* is better.

    janos
     
    AND Books, Feb 8, 2006
    #5
  6. The factory aircon in a 90's 940 with the 2.3 litre normally aspirated
    motor will impose significant drag, meaning you have to turn it off if
    you want to accelerate quickly. The turbo may not have this problem. A
    more efficient after-market compressor may not have the problem to the
    same degree either.

    --
    Cheers

    Andrew

    <--- Remove The NO and SPAM When Replying --->
     
    Andrew McKenna, Feb 8, 2006
    #6
  7. (Just) Allan

    (Just) Allan Guest

    Yep, I hear you... Our 1976 had very light steering - I could turn it
    with one finger and with wide tyres. The steering on this '78 is so
    heavy, it's ridiculous. If I drive it a lot in a week, I get a sore
    shoulder and wrists. It's got air conditioning, but of course it
    doesn't work. I paid one guy to fix the air a few years ago when we
    bought it, and it made no difference.

    So... No comments on the 440s anyone?

    Allan.
     
    (Just) Allan, Feb 8, 2006
    #7
  8. (Just) Allan

    (Just) Allan Guest

    I wish! (I'm in Australia.)
     
    (Just) Allan, Feb 8, 2006
    #8
  9. Volvo built their reputation for reliability on the 240, and cashed it out
    on the 850.

    The 940 was the last of the 4-cylinder, rear-wheel-drive, legendary Volvos,
    with a little more comfort than 240, but a trifle underpowered without
    turbo.
     
    Robert Lutwak, Feb 9, 2006
    #9
  10. (Just) Allan

    (Just) Allan Guest

    Thanks... I can't understand why no-ones commented on the 440s! Were
    they not released in the USA!?
     
    (Just) Allan, Feb 9, 2006
    #10
  11. In <>,
    They were not. Nor were the 3-series. The only Dutch made Volvo to make
    it here was the old S40/V40 (pre-2004.5).

    AC
     
    Aawara Chowdhury, Feb 9, 2006
    #11
  12. (Just) Allan

    keith Barret Guest

    We had a '94 440 with the 2.0 engine It was reasonably quick and
    probably as comfortable as anything else of the same size. The snag was
    it used vast amounts of oil about 2 pints every 1000 miles and it had
    only covered 120,000 miles. I also think they were more prone to rust
    than the larger volvos.
     
    keith Barret, Feb 9, 2006
    #12
  13. (Just) Allan

    James Sweet Guest


    Nope, the 300 and 400 series never appeared anywhere in North America.
    To me they don't even look like Volvos.
     
    James Sweet, Feb 10, 2006
    #13
  14. (Just) Allan

    (Just) Allan Guest

    I know... The x's and c's don't to me either. If you saw the
    Australian Holden Commodore or Ford AU or BA Falcon, you'd know why
    ; )
     
    (Just) Allan, Feb 10, 2006
    #14
Ask a Question

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments (here). After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.